E.P.Kavitha v. The State Rep. by Its

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

09.06.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 318(4) of BNS r/w. Section Page2 of 4 66 (C) and 66 (D) of Information and Technology Act, 2005 in Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant wanted to purchase a paddy harvesting machine. On 27.08.2024, the he made an online payment to secure an Axis Bank loan. The complainant purchased a 5-year insurance policy but could not sustain the premium payments. He subsequently took out a new insurance policy with Met Life. After citing his policy number and other details, the co-accused promised to transfer the maturity amount to the de facto complainant, but to pay Rs.3 Lakhs towards GST. Thereafter the de facto complainant was asked to pay another Rs.2 lakhs. The de facto complaint transferred Rs.62,00,000/- for the increased value of policy of Rs.4,77,00,000/- against the policy value of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The petitioner had misappropriated the money of the de-facto complainant and also the general public. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner. Page3 of 4

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the respondent police are receiving several complaints from other victims as well. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶5Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the gravity of allegation against the petitioner and upon the fact that investigation is still in progress and as rightly contended by the learned Government counsel (Criminal Side), the respondent police are receiving complaints from other victims, in such view of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitoner on bail at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 17-07-2026 SHL Page4 of 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J. SHL To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Kallakurichi.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras 17-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN E.P.Kavitha ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi District. Crime No.11 of 2026. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in FIR Cr.No.11 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner: Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Pon Balaji For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)